Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law and Society

1991

United States Supreme Court

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Tdhs V. E.B., The Coup De Grace For Special Issues., John J. Sampson Jan 1991

Tdhs V. E.B., The Coup De Grace For Special Issues., John J. Sampson

St. Mary's Law Journal

Although the bench and bar have been recalcitrant in recognition, the Texas Supreme Court has declared the special interest experiment a failure. For nearly eighty years Texas has engaged in an experiment requiring juries answer specific, factually detailed inquiries in various circumstances. The theoretical justifications of special issue inquiries were to ease appeals processes and add clarity to jury decisions. Although the goals were meritorious, the actual result was jury confusion, inefficiency, complexity, and too many retrials. The Texas Supreme Court’s ruling in TDHS v. EB signals the end of special issues and mandates the use of broad form submissions. …


Reformers' Regress: The 1991 Texas Workers' Compensation Act., Jill Williford Jan 1991

Reformers' Regress: The 1991 Texas Workers' Compensation Act., Jill Williford

St. Mary's Law Journal

The revision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act will affect most Texas taxpayers and workers. The Act, entering into force January 1, 1991, significantly restructures the preexisting seventy-six-year-old system. Before the advent of workers’ compensation systems employees relied on the court and common-law causes of action as the sole means of recovery. In 1913, Texas enacted one of the first versions of workers’ compensation in the United States. The original act created a system to compensate workers for injuries sustained during employment without regard to fault. Initially the act was elective for employers and mandatory for employees but was later …


An Independent And Adequate Procedural Rule Bars A State Prisoner, Who Has Defaulted His Entire Appeal, From Asserting A Federal Claim Unless The Prisoner Demonstrates Cause For, And Actual Prejudice Resulting From, The Procedural Default, Or In The Alternative, Proves A Fundamental Miscarriage Of Justice Will Result If The Federal Habeas Court Fails To Hear The Claim., Jared R. V. Woodfill Jan 1991

An Independent And Adequate Procedural Rule Bars A State Prisoner, Who Has Defaulted His Entire Appeal, From Asserting A Federal Claim Unless The Prisoner Demonstrates Cause For, And Actual Prejudice Resulting From, The Procedural Default, Or In The Alternative, Proves A Fundamental Miscarriage Of Justice Will Result If The Federal Habeas Court Fails To Hear The Claim., Jared R. V. Woodfill

St. Mary's Law Journal

The current jurisprudential regime accepts a blanket procedural default policy which denies the federal habeas court its proper constitutional role. An ideological coup d’etat is needed which reappraises the modern procedural default doctrine and supplants it with a rule in the spirit of Fay v. Noia. Such a revolution would emphasize the federal habeas court’s role as a defender of constitutional rights. In an era of multifarious litigation and sociological jurisprudence, a habeas prisoner should not lose his life because a negligent public defender failed to preserve the right in procedural formaldehyde. On April 23, 1982, a court convicted Roger …